For up-to- date team by team 1acs go here

Water 1ac Draft as of Friday, July 20

Observation One: The Water Crisis

Sub-Saharan Africa is plagued with water sanitation problems that cause millions of deaths annually; however no action has been taken to actively address the problem.
United Nations Development Program, 11/9/06 (Press Release: World Water and Sanitation Crisis Urgently Needs a Global Action Plan, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/gpg/2006/1109humdev.htm)

A Global Action Plan under G8 leadership is urgently needed to resolve a growing water and sanitation crisis that causes nearly two million child deaths every year, says the 2006 Human Development Report, released here today. Across much of the developing world, unclean water is an immeasurably greater threat to human security than violent conflict, according to the Report, entitled Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis. Each year, the authors report, 1.8 million children die from diarrhoea that could be prevented with access to clean water and a toilet; 443 million school days are lost to water-related illnesses; and almost 50 percent of all people in developing countries are suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by a lack of water and sanitation. To add to these human costs, the crisis in water and sanitation holds back economic growth, with sub-Saharan Africa losing five percent of GDP annually—far more than the region receives in aid. Yet unlike wars and natural disasters, this global crisis does not galvanise concerted international action, says the 2006 Human Development Report (HDR). “Like hunger, it is a silent emergency experienced by the poor and tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and the political power to end it,” says the Report. With less than a decade left to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015, this needs to change, stress the authors.


The Water for the Poor Act provides the ideal framework for giving water-based assistance to sub-Saharan Africa; however lack of funding prevents its success and prevents us from mobilizing other countries.
Lochery, CARE Water Team Director, 5/16/07 (Peter, “Beyond the Status Quo: Bringing Down Barriers to Water and Sanitation Provision in Africa through Implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act”, http://www.care.org/newsroom/articles/2007/05/lochery_water_testimony.pdf)

The Water for the Poor Act made the provision of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene an explicit objective of US foreign assistance and called for the State Department to develop a comprehensive strategy outlining how the US would go about expanding equitable access to water and sanitation in countries where the need is greatest. However, implementation of the Act has been limited and has not been backed by the increased appropriations required to realize the goals encompassed in it. The passage of the Water for the Poor Act presents an opportunity around which the US can bring expertise gained through programs in other regions of the world and significantly expanded funding to bear in sub-Saharan Africa. The strategy required by the Act also helps address gaps in responding to the African water crisis. These include: designating high priority recipient countries toward which funding should be targeted; determining which of those countries are truly committed to instituting the necessary reforms and enhancing accountability to their citizens; developing a system of measurable goals, benchmarks and timetables for monitoring US foreign assistance; and coordinating assistance with other donor countries. The US Government should also focus on complementary activities to strengthen civil societies’, governments’, and the media’s capacity to scrutinize their water and sanitation sector and demand that money be used appropriately and effectively. This capacity building will benefit not only the country receiving aid by ensuring that water and sanitation services are being delivered as they should be, but also the US as it will encourage the careful use of foreign assistance funds.



Thus the plan:

THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE FULL FUNDING AND FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF P.L. 109-121* TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.


*Commonly referred to as the Water for the Poor Act (2004)


Advantage One: Water Wars

Water shortages in sub-Saharan Africa are dwindling, spurring conflict.
Council on Foreign Relations, 8-7-06, (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11240/)
Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from chronically overburdened water systems under increasing stress from fast-growing urban areas. Weak governments, corruption, mismanagement of resources, poor long-term investment, and a lack of environmental research and urban infrastructure only exacerbate the problem. In some cases, the disruption or contamination of water supply in urban infrastructures and rural area has incited domestic and cross-border violence. Experts say incorporating water improvements into economic development is necessary to end the severe problems caused by water stress and to improve public health and advance the economic stability of the region.

Lack of a solution to the crisis makes water wars inevitable.
Peter J. Ashton, South African Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Scientists, water quality and water resources specialist CSIR, May 2002, (http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0044-7447&volume=031&issue=03&page=0236 )
In the light of the evidence already presented, it is clear that water conflicts in Africa will be inevitable if we do not prevent them from occurring. This somewhat simplistic statement is guided by the knowledge that Africa's freshwater resources are finite and cannot continue indefinitely to support the escalating demands that we make of them. If no actions are taken, competition for the available water supplies will continue to increase to a point where radical interventions will be required to avert conflict (8). Turton (28) has argued convincingly that water is most unlikely to be the direct cause of a "war" over water in Africa. Nevertheless, there is a distinct possibility that increasing demands for water could contribute to regional instability if the demands approach the limits of the available supplies and the "competing" societies are unable to adapt appropriately to this situation (8). Clearly, where more than one country or an entire region is involved in a dispute, a wide array of coping strategies and mechanisms can be deployed to resolve the problem. The presence of effective communication mechanisms and efficient institutional structures forms an extremely important component of all such strategies. The common-sense statement: "prevention is better than cure" provides a perfect outline of the goals and objectives that should direct our strategies and actions when we seek to deal with the complex issues of water-related conflicts. However, despite its apparent simplicity, this ideal often eludes us in practice (8). A large part of the reason for this lies in the diverse, and often contradictory, ways in which we attach value to water, and the ways in which we strive to derive both individual and collective benefit from our use of water. Too often our objectives have a short-term, local focus aimed at meeting objectives and solving problems today, rather than a far longer-term focus on the sustainable and equitable use of our water resources on a regional or continental scale (8, 17). If our demands for water outstrip our ability to manage water as a focus for cooperation and the achievement of common goals, there is a very real risk that we will enter an ever-tightening spiral of poverty, whose social, economic and environmental consequences will threaten the fabric of society. In contrast, if we can attain an equitable balance between the demands we make for the services and goods that we derive from the use of water, and our ability to exercise our custodianship of water, we will be able to achieve a far more harmonious and sustainable situation. However, to achieve this, all our policies and strategies concerning water must be guided by the values of sustainability, equity, mutual cooperation, and the attainment of optimal benefit for society (34).
Water conflicts will escalate, risking the erosion of the very base upon which civilization rests – they will continue to promulgate terrorism until society has collapsed.
Vandana Shiva, International Forum on Globalization, 02, "Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit" p. x-xii
Paradigm wars over water are taking place in every society, East and West, North and South. In this sense, water wars are global wars, with diverse cultures and ecosystems, sharing the universal ethic of water as an ecological necessity, pitted against a corporate culture of privatization, greed, and enclosures of the water commons. On one side of these ecological contests and paradigm wars are millions of species and billions of people seeking enough water for sustenance. On the other side are a handful of global corporations, dominated by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, Vivendi Environment, and Bechtel and assisted by global institutions like the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and G-7 governments. Alongside these paradigm wars are actual wars over water between regions, within countries, and within communities. Whether it is in Punjab or in Palestine, political violence often arises from conflicts over scarce but vital water resources. In some conflicts, the role of water is explicit, as is the case with Syria and Turkey, or with Egypt and Ethiopia. But many political conflicts over resources are hidden or suppressed. Those who control power prefer to mask water wars as ethnic and religious conflicts. Such camouflaging is easy because regions along rivers are inhabited by pluralistic societies with diverse groups, languages, and practices. It is always possible to color water conflicts in such regions as conflicts amongst regions, religions, and ethnicities. In Punjab, an important component of conflicts that led to more than 15,000 deaths during the 1980s was an ongoing discord over the sharing of river waters. However, the conflict, which centered on development disagreements including strategies of the use and distribution of Punjab's rivers, was characterized as an issue of Sikh separatism. A water war was presented as a religious war. Such misrepresentations of water wars divert much-needed political energy from sustainable and just solutions to water sharing. Something similar has happened with the land and water conflicts between the Palestinians and Israelis. Conflicts over natural resources have been presented as primarily religious conflicts between Muslims and Jews. Over the past two decades, I have witnessed conflicts over development and conflicts over natural resources mutate into communal conflicts, culminating in extremism and terrorism. My book Violence of the Green Revolution was an attempt to understand the ecology of terrorism. The lessons I have drawn from the growing but diverse expressions of fundamentalism and terrorism are the following: 1. Nondemocratic economic systems that centralize control over decision making and resources and displace people from productive employment and livelihoods create a culture of insecurity. Every policy decision is translated into the politics of "we" and "they." "We" have been unjustly treated, while "they" have gained privileges. 2. Destruction of resource rights and erosion of democratic control of natural resources, the economy, and means of production undermine cultural identity. With identity no longer coming from the positive experience of being a farmer, a craftsperson, a teacher, or a nurse, culture is reduced to a negative shell where one identity is in competition with the "other" over scarce resources that define economic and political power. 3. Centralized economic systems also erode the democratic base of politics. In a democracy, the economic agenda is the political agenda. When the former is hijacked by the World Bank, the IMF, or the WTO, democracy is decimated. The only cards left in the hands of politicians eager to garner votes are those of race, religion, and ethnicity, which subsequently give rise to fundamentalism. And fundamentalism effectively fills the vacuum left by a decaying democracy. Economic globalization is fueling economic insecurity, eroding cultural diversity and identity, and assaulting the political freedoms of citizens. It is providing fertile ground for the cultivation of fundamentalism and terrorism. Instead of integrating people, corporate globalization is tearing apart communities. The survival of people and democracy are contingent on a response to the double fascism of globalization – the economic fascism that destroys people's rights to resources and the fundamentalist fascism that feeds on people's displacement, dispossession, economic insecurities, and fears. On September 11, 2001, the tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon unleashed a "war against terrorism" promulgated by the US government under George W. Bush. Despite the rhetoric, this war will not contain terrorism because it fails to address the roots of terrorism – economic insecurity, cultural subordination, and ecological dispossession. The new war is in fact creating a chain reaction of violence and spreading the virus of hate. And the magnitude of the damage to the earth caused by "smart" bombs and carpet bombing remains to be seen.



Advantage Two: Disease

Lack of sanitation and water scarcity forces people in sub-Saharan Africa to drink dirty water that contains multiple pathogens.
HDR. Human Development Report is commissioned by the UN and produced by leading scholars. 2006. Chapter 1 “Ending the Crisis in Water and Sanitation.” http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/report.cfm#

In important respects they hide the reality experienced daily by the people behind the statistics. That reality means that people are forced to defecate in ditches, plastic bags or on road sides. “Not having access to clean water” is a euphemism for profound deprivation. It means that people live more than 1 kilometre from the nearest safe water source and that they collect water from drains, ditches or streams that might be infected with pathogens and bacteria that can cause severe illness and death. In rural Sub- Saharan Africa millions of people share their domestic water sources with animals or rely on unprotected wells that are breeding grounds for pathogens. Nor is the problem restricted to the poorest countries. In Tajikistan nearly a third of the population takes water from canals and irrigation ditches, with risks of exposure to polluted agricultural run-off.15 The problem is not that people are unaware of the dangers—it is that they have no choice. Apart from the health risks, inadequate access to water means that women and young girls spend long hours collecting and carrying household water supplies.


Water-related diseases kill millions of Africans annually.
Wanja Njuguna-Githinji. Kenyan Journalist. No Date, post 2000. Africa. ITT, Guidebook to Global Water Issues. http://www.itt.com/waterbook/Africa.asp

Water shortages, polluted water, improper waste disposal and poor water management cause serious public health problems in Africa today. Water-related diseases such as malaria, cholera, typhoid and schistosomiasis harm or kill millions of people every year. Overuse and pollution of water supplies are also taking a heavy toll on the natural environment and pose increasing risks for many species of life.
The current level of investment for water supply and sanitization in the African region, estimated at $1.3 billion a year, remains totally inadequate to meet the sector's needs and has resulted in the poorest service coverage yet. A World Health Organization report called "Year 2000 Progress Report" says that funds required annually for water supply and sanitation just to cope with the current rate of population growth are estimated at $2.2 billion. According to the report, over half of the population in Africa today lack safe drinking water while two-thirds lack a sanitary means of human waste disposal.


Advantage Three: The Hege Train

Initially note, the US’s global image is declining everywhere except Africa, however our influence is weak because of Chinese influence.
Lobe, bureau chief of the Washington IPS, 6/27/07 (Jim, “POLITICS: U.S. Image Abroad Still Sinking”, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38346)

Consistent with its performance since at least 2002, the global image of the United States sank further over the past year, particularly among predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, according to the latest Pew Global Attitudes Project (GAP) survey released here Wednesday. The survey, which included more than 45,000 respondents interviewed in 46 countries and the Palestinian Territories (PT) during April and early May, found that the U.S. retains great popularity (roughly two-thirds or more rate it favourably) only in Israel and most of sub-Saharan Africa. But its standing among its western European allies, most of Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, as well as the Islamic world and most Asia, including China, has continued to fall, particularly compared to five years ago on the eve of its invasion of Iraq, according to the survey. At the same time, the latest survey, the sixth undertaken by Pew since 2000, found that global attitudes towards other major powers, particularly Russia, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, China, have also become more negative. Foreign confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin "to do the right thing regarding world affairs," for example, has fallen nearly to the same low levels as U.S. President George W. Bush in many countries, particularly in Western Europe, the survey found. "The major powers are not respected; their leaders are not respected," said former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who co-chairs GAP along with Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth. She noted that two challengers to the current international system -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who were also the subject of the survey -- also fared poorly. Attitudes towards the United Nations and the European Union were significantly more positive, although they varied widely from region to region. Majorities in 33 of the 47 countries surveyed said they had favourable views of both institutions, with Africa the most positive and the Middle East the least. The rest of the world offered more mixed assessments. Overall, the survey also found a sharp rise in global concern -- led by Brazil, Argentina, France, Venezuela, Peru and Germany -- about environmental threats to the planet compared to five years ago. Pluralities or majorities in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, including China (70 percent), rated the environment as one of the two most important threats facing the world. In 34 of the 37 countries surveyed on the question, the U.S. was named either by a majority or a clear plurality as the country that is "hurting the world's environment the most", while China was the second-most frequently named country as the source of environmental problems. In Sub-Saharan Africa, majorities in all but one of the 10 surveyed countries rated HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases as the top global threat, while in the Middle East, the most-often-cited threats were nuclear proliferation and religious and ethnic hatred. Concern about the growing divide between rich and poor nations was also cited more frequently as a major threat in most regions than in previous surveys. Majorities or pluralities in most countries said they believed U.S. policies increased the gap. The continuing decline in Washington's standing was reflected not only in the belief that it bore most responsibility for environmental threats and the rich-poor gap, but also in growing disapproval for the Bush administration's most prominent foreign policy commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the survey. From 50 percent (Britain and South Africa) to 93 percent (PT) in 43 of 47 countries said the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq, while majorities in 32 countries, including of 80 percent or more in Argentina, Egypt, PT, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and China, said NATO should leave Afghanistan. In 30 out of 34 countries that were polled on the question in 2002, as well as 2007, support for Washington's global war on terror has dropped, particularly in Europe. Even in countries that have experienced terrorist attacks in recent years, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Spain, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, majorities say they oppose the U.S. campaign. Throughout the Islamic world (with the exception of Pakistan), majorities ranging from 55 percent in Malaysia and Bangladesh to 91 percent in Jordan criticised U.S. policy in the Middle East for favouring Israel "too much". Majorities in France, Germany, and Sweden and clear pluralities in Britain, Canada, South Korea and even Israel itself -- a finding Danforth called a "broadside" against current U.S. policy -- took the same position. Majorities in 30 of 46 countries -- mostly in the Middle East and Europe -- said they believed that Washington tended to act unilaterally in foreign affairs without taking the interests of their countries into account. That view was most strongly held (74 percent or more) by respondents in Sweden, Britain France, Spain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, PT, and South Korea. At the other end of the spectrum, 74 of Israelis said they believed Washington took account of their interests either a "great deal" or a "fair amount". Washington also received high marks on the same subject from Nigeria, Kenya, Cote d'Ivoire, and India. The survey found that the balance of opinion toward China remains favourable in 27 of the 47 countries overall, particularly among a number of its Asian neighbours, notably Malaysia (83 percent favourable), Pakistan (79 percent), Bangladesh (74 percent), and Indonesia (65 percent), and much of sub-Saharan Africa where Beijing's economic investment has grown rapidly. Nonetheless, the survey found double-digit declines over the last several years in its favourability ratings in most of Western Europe, South Korea, Turkey, and Japan. The survey found particularly great concern over China's growing military power in South Korea, France, the Czech Republic, Japan, and Germany. At the same time, both Latin American and African respondents said that China's influence on their region was more positive than U.S. influence.


US water assistance uniquely increases US influence – it allows us to accomplish any of our objectives.
Petersen, CSIS, 2007 (Erik, “Below the Surface: U.S. International Water Policy”, Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 19th, http://forums.csis.org/gsi/?p=384)

As we scan the more distant time horizons, the dimensions of the water challenge will probably increase significantly. If you superimpose projections for rapid population growth on a map of the world, it will likely occur in those areas of the world that are already the most distressed when it comes to water. What are the two areas of the world forecast to have the highest population growth out to the middle of the century? Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa. As monumental as the challenges are in those two regions, they do not stop there. Water looms large as a critical catalyst to—or constraint on—development in countries from China to Chile, India to Indonesia, Russia to Rwanda. By 2025, according to the United Nations, it is possible that more than 2.5 billion people will live in countries experiencing serious water stress. The aggregate numbers could rise even further if the effects of global warming and broader environmental degradation persist, as expected. For all these reasons, one would think that water would be a central component in U.S. foreign policy. Targeting water as an instrument of Washington's engagement with the rest of the world would enable policymakers to assist with humanitarian relief, strengthen human health, support other public health commitments (such as efforts to address HIV/AIDS), promote economic development, advance opportunities for girls and women, and improve the capacity of countries to protect themselves against drought, on the one hand, or floods, on the other. Furthermore, it would imply important commercial opportunities for U.S.-domiciled corporations working in water-related technologies and processes. Targeting water would also yield other geopolitical dividends—including removing what is a serious obstacle to stability and security within states and reducing the possibility for conflict or tension between countries with shared water resources. Finally, water represents an avenue for the United States to demonstrate leadership in the world at a time when its image has eroded so considerably. In short, a water-centered set of policies could represent a remarkable opportunity for the United States to "do good" while "doing well" when it comes to pursuing its own interests in the world. If that’s the theory, then the reality becomes all the more difficult to comprehend. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), U.S. official development assistance commitments for water supply and sanitation in 1999-2000 amounted to less than two percent ($165m) of total national assistance—the lowest (with New Zealand) of any OECD member state.1 By 2003-2004 the U.S. level had grown to $521m, according to the same OECD statistics, but the lion’s share of the rise was attributable to increased financial assistance directed to Iraq—and even at that level, total assistance was well below the corresponding level for Japan, the OECD leader in water spending. Of the water-related U.S. support not channeled into Iraq, moreover, a disproportionate percentage was allocated to the Middle East and not to regions such as sub-Saharan Africa where the problems are the greatest. In other words, politics are trumping need. Le plus ça change...



Scenario One: Soft Power

US influence in water spills over – it is key to our soft power in every other area.
CSIS, Sept. 30 2005 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Addressing Our Global Water Future” http://water.csis.org/050928_ogwf.pdf)

It is clear that water scarcity, water quality, and water management will affect almost every major U.S. strategic priority in every key region of the world. Addressing the world’s water needs will go well beyond humanitarian and economic development interests. Virtually every major U.S. foreign policy objective—promoting stability and security, reducing extremist violence, democracy building, post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, poverty reduction, meeting the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, combating HIV/AIDS, promoting bilateral and multilateral relationships—will be contingent to some extent on how well the challenge of global water can be addressed. Because water is so integral to human life, many strategies to promote economic development or humanitarian relief (e.g., poverty reduction or HIV/AIDS relief) cannot be achieved without a recognized water component. Water projects can also strengthen democracy-building projects in areas where such projects are not well-received by fostering inclusive decision making and management processes at a local scale. A review of most post-conflict or unstable areas will demonstrate that water should be a key component in any short-term or long-term regional stabilization and reconstruction effort. Water also has significant implications for U.S. international economic policy. It is a key driver of economic stability and prosperity in a number of important regions across the world. As previously discussed, water has structural linkages with the agricultural, energy and industrial/manufacturing sectors and its availability and quality are therefore critical to prospects for growth and stability. Conversely, if the challenge of access and quality worsens, water could contribute to economic and financial instability and uncertainty. While the debate over water as a potential cause for war in the future continues, the fact remains that water scarcity and poor water quality are destabilizing forces that impact both economic and social stability. Facilitating cooperative arrangements over shared water resources not only diminishes these disruptive forces but also provides avenues for cooperation and political development in other spheres.


Without soft power hegemony will inevitably collapse – too many conflicts will fall outside of military control, guaranteeing foreign policy failure.
Nye, dean of the Kennedy school of government at Havard, 2003 (Joseph, “U.S. power and strategy after Iraq” Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug)

The problem for the U.S. in the twenty-first century is that more and more continues to fall outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the U.S. does well on the traditional measures of hard power, these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and democratization of technology. The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that makes it impossible for the strongest world power since Rome to achieve some of its most crucial international goals alone. The Untied States lacks both the international and domestic capacity to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies and to monitor and control transnational developments that threaten Americans at home. On many of today’s key issues, such as international financial stability, drug trafficking the spread of diseases, and especially new terrorism, military power alone simply cannot produce success, and it’s use can sometimes be counterproductive. Instead as the most powerful country the U.S. most mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and challenges. By devaluing soft power and institutions, the new unilateralist coalition of Jacksonians and neo-Wilsonians is depriving Washington of some of its most important instruments for the implementation of the new national security strategy. If they manage to continue with this tack, the U.S. could fail what Henry Kissinger called the historical test for this generation of American leaders: to use the current preponderant U.S. soft power to achieve an international consensus behind widely accepted norms that will protect American values in a more uncertain future.

Scenario Two: Forward Deployment

Reengaging with Africa is key to influence there.
Brookes and Shin, the Heritage Foundation, 2006 (Peter and Ji Hye, the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, “China’s Influence in Africa: Implications for the United States”, Feb 22, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/upload/94305_1.pdf)

• Develop a coordinated, comprehensive strategy. Appropriate U.S. agencies should develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy based on a review of the challenges and obstacles in each country and the available American resources. Consistent, constant, and coherent American engagement in Africa will help to counter the illiberal forces that stunt African development. • Increase the U.S. diplomatic profile in Africa. The United States has demonstrated considerable commitment to promoting economic growth and development, representative government, health, and human rights in Africa. Since 1960, Washington has provided $51.2 billion (in 2003 dollars) in official bilateral development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa.36 The United States is the largest humanitarian aid donor ($3.3 billion in 2003) and also the largest source of bilateral and multilateral support to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases.37 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s reorganization and expansion of diplomatic posts, combined with extensive public diplomacy to publicize U.S. assistance efforts in Africa and shared interests between the two regions, will help to change the pervasive African perception that the United States cares little for the region. To further these efforts, President George W. Bush should go on an extended trip to Africa to strengthen relations with Africa.


Increasing our influence in Africa is key to establish forward deployment capabilities there which is key to solve asymmetric threats, force mobility, and overall power projection in the twenty-first century.
Hall, Colonel in the USAF and US Joint forces command, 2003 (Brian, “Air Expeditionary Access The African Connection”, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/fal03/hall.html#hall)

The NSS notes that, "together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa’s fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists."4 We cannot realize these goals without significant power projection and sustainment to a continent of immense size and diversity. The US/ African regional-security strategy must respect multilateral alliances while preparing bilateral engagements that build confidence and strengthen assured access. The administration of President George W. Bush clearly recognizes that it must focus its attention on South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia as anchor states for regional-security cooperation. Yet, other regional players also deserve recognition for maintaining good governance and implementing responsible, democratic political systems- namely Ghana, Gabon, Mali, and Senegal. The administration’s policy towards regional-security cooperation recognizes these states, as it does the entire Sahel. Indeed, the Pan-Sahel Initiative is the most recent cooperative effort spun off from the global war on terrorism.5 Budding democracies have granted US requests for access to counter emerging crises. We will need assured access to shore up rapid response once conflict flares, as it has recently in Liberia and numerous times in Africa over the last decade. Striving to balance global power as it develops new national-security strategies, the United States finds itself in a unique hegemonic position. From a classic political perspective, this is not necessarily bad because if one nation dominates the international arena with overwhelming power, peace and stability reign since there is little point in declaring war against such a state. Political scientist Robert Gilpin has argued that "Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, like Pax Romana, ensured an international system of relative peace and security."6 Unlike the Britain of the past, which controlled a global empire, America possesses a large, self-sustaining home economy and has the ability to project great soft power (the art of diplomacy, transparent military cooperation, and economic reform) to all corners of the globe. Thus, the United States is more apt to send food and medical supplies than a man-of-war to Africa. Power projection and access go hand in hand. In this article, air expedition becomes the means of power projection, and access is its enabler. But one has to peel back the discussion of national power another layer or two to adequately portray the type of power best suited to project towards Africa. Of course, the United States must always be prepared to exercise both military and economic hard power to induce other parties to change their positions. Major force deployments and economic sanctions are two examples of the compelling projection of hard power, which is relatively easy to use when access is predictable and overseas presence extensive. A large, permanent US presence and investment (military and economic) in Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East demonstrate America’s willingness to use hard power. But one can exercise power indirectly: that is, a country can obtain desired outcomes in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness, and therefore want to follow it.7 Soft power is more than persuasion or the ability to move people by argument.8 The United States would be in dire straits if it lost the ability to shape the international landscape by credibly

projecting hard and soft power. America’s hegemony comes into play less often when its soft power is strong and associated with the tenets of benevolence and human dignity. Africa is ripe for soft-power engagement. Great hard-power resources, such as those invested in the Middle East, Europe, and the Pacific, are not needed in Africa. Soft-power projection will go a long way towards securing vital American interests. Credible projectors of soft power include Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, each of which has political clout that vastly exceeds its military and economic weight. All four nations incorporate attractive soft implements such as economic aid and peacekeeping assets into their definition of national interests, thereby negating the necessity for costly hard power. Limited objectives allow for exclusive soft-power foreign policies. Interestingly, governments are not the only wielders of soft power. US industries and NGOs develop their own soft power, which might either complement or compete with official foreign policy. But there is no room for friction between players when scarce resources are better applied by collaborative efforts that assure widespread access- a classic, symbiotic soft-power relationship. In Africa, competing unilateral efforts tend not to survive. From the onset, complementary private and public cooperation has a greater impact and longer-lasting effects. For that reason, the US military plays a substantial role in transporting, distributing, and supporting the wares of many NGOs and official government programs. There are ways to assure that all US interests in Africa are safely supportable and, if necessary, introduced in-theater via expeditionary, global-mobility, and rapid-response task forces. Little difference exists in the planning, executing, and sustaining of air expeditionary task forces for other-than-major conflicts. Although their scope and character are vastly different, the strength of air expeditionary task forces lies in the transformational capabilities of each. In Africa, the potential for rapid global mobility and agile combat support (ACS), reinforced with distributed command and control capabilities, is perfect for future area operations. Air expeditionary forces (most likely part of a joint task force) will rapidly move, position, and sustain these forces. Rapid global mobility demonstrates an improved ability to support operations with a smaller force and footprint while transiting distances in minimum time. ACS, which begins well before deployment, provides many capabilities crucial to successful beddown and sustainment, including readying the force; assessing,
planning, and posturing for employment; tailoring and preparing for movement, deployment, and reception; employing effectively; and sustaining appropriate levels of support for theater operations.9 Although these concepts and capabilities sound promising, nonstate entities preparing for conflict with the United States will seek to capitalize on the great distances US forces must travel to engage them. Those evasive enemies realize all too well the near-absolute reliance of the United States on unimpeded access to and use of airfields and bases in the potential theater of conflict.10 In today’s environment of crisis action, quickly getting in-theater is as important as what one does after forces arrive. The Bush administration’s greatest concern for the projection of military power to Africa is establishing select sites that form the greatest foothold once the boots hit the ground.11





Collapse of hegemony will lead to global instability and regional power wars worldwide – this terminally culminates in global nuclear war.
Khalizad, RAND Corporation, 1995 (Zalmay, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995)

What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil-importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis.<continued…> The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed. Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Finally, they can’t win an impact – war and instability can only occur absent US primacy, and collapse of hege would collapse the entire liberal order upon which civilization rests.
Thayer, 2006 (Bradley, prof. of security studies at Missouri State, The National Interest, “In Defense of Primacy”, November/December, p. 32-37)

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.2 This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg.


Observation Two: Solvency

Fully funding the Act could solve the water crisis within the decade.
Natural Resource Defense Council, Jan 2007 (“Global Safe Water: Solving the World’s Most Pressing Environmental Health Problem”, http://www.nrdc.org/international/water/safewater.pdf)

U.S. Steps to Secure Safe Water by 2015 In 2005, Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, which made the provision of safe water and sanitation a cornerstone of U.S. foreign assistance by integrating water and sanitation into all U.S. development programs. The act requires the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to expand access to clean water for millions of people in the developing world to meet the UN’s 2015 target. But Congress has yet to designate any funds to implement the act, effectively crippling it. A Call for Congressional Action NRDC and other organizations are calling on Congress to fully fund the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act in 2007. The act presents an opportunity for the United States to not only to engage international organizations in targeting the places of greatest need, but also to provide permanent solutions to one of the world’s worst environmental health problems. Safe drinking water is an essential step for human health and economic development. With simple sanitation improvements and basic water treatment and delivery, the world’s largest environmental health crisis can be resolved in the next decade.


More funding is key to recognizing all the objectives of the Act and subsequently solving Africa’s water crisis.
Lochery, CARE Water Team Director, 5/16/07 (Peter, “Beyond the Status Quo: Bringing Down Barriers to Water and Sanitation Provision in Africa through Implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act”, http://www.care.org/newsroom/articles/2007/05/lochery_water_testimony.pdf)

The information presented in the Report revealed that in FY 2005, a bulk of US funding went to countries and regions of strategic interest (like Afghanistan, Iraq, and the West Bank and Gaza), while only roughly $15 million in sustainable water supply and sanitation funding went to sub-Saharan Africa, indisputably one of the areas of greatest need. The Report also counted the amount spent in the emergency sector--which, depending on how you count, receives over 50% of total funding--toward what the US is spending on water and sanitation. While funding relief efforts is essential to saving lives, and an activity that the US should continue to invest in, emergency spending will only go so far in addressing the issue of sustainable access to safe water and sanitation, particularly when there are limited funds for the transition from relief to development. There is no substitute to increasing funding for developmental water and sanitation, which is why the Water for the Poor Act explicitly called for the US to help “expand access to safe water and sanitation in an affordable, equitable, and sustainable manner.” The facts that have come to light with the release of the first State Department Water for the Poor Act Report indicate that US funding must be significantly increased to fill the gaps in addressing the water and sanitation needs of Africa and other under-served areas. Furthermore, they underscore the need to elevate water and sanitation as an explicit priority in order to truly realize the vision incorporated in the legislation.








The Act’s assistance spills over – it opens the door to more and better assistance when needed in the future.
Kraus, executive CP of Citizens for Global Solutions, and Holt, Edward Rawson Fellow at Citizens for Global Solutions, 4/5/05 (Don and Dominic, “THICKER THAN BLOOD”, http://oldsite.globalsolutions.org/press_room/news/news_thicker_blood.html)

The Water for the Poor Act would make providing access to clean water and basic sanitation a cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid. The bill employs simple policy for a very complex problem. As such, it is the beginning rather than the end of a viable solution. However, it would help show the world that the United States keeps its promises. In 2002, for example, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United States and 185 other nations pledged to halve the number of people worldwide without access to clean water and basic sanitation by 2015. While this legislation is extremely important, equally if not more significant is the spirit of cooperation that made it possible. The collaboration of Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid, in particular, demonstrates that ideological opposites and frequent opponents can and should find common ground to work together for America’s interests. It also serves as a welcome reminder that bipartisanship is possible and productive even in such a bitterly polarized Congress. The kind of principled cooperation that gave impetus to the Water for the Poor Act is absolutely necessary if we are to address the many challenges facing both America and the world today. In the past, America had visionary leaders who recognized that partisanship ended at our nation’s shores. Presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, George H. W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton articulated foreign policy values that united Americans, rather than dividing them. But today, partisanship, not principal, too often governs our nation’s foreign policy, usually with damaging consequences. The Water for Poor Act should serve as a wake-up call to policymakers: If we are to achieve our foreign policy objectives, our leaders in Congress and the White House must stop looking for scapegoats and start working together. A return to the old adage, ‘politics stop at the water’s edge’ is sorely needed.